“Romer v. Evans”: Federalism, Separation of Powers, Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism


Add to cart
Essay #: 056561
Total text length is 5,447 characters (approximately 3.8 pages).

Excerpts from the Paper

The beginning:
"Romer v. Evans": Federalism, Separation of Powers, Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism
The following paper looks at the Supreme Court Case of Romer vs. Evans and explains how the Supreme Court decision involves and illustrates the issues of federalism, separation of powers, judicial restraint, and judicial activism. Looking at the available evidence, one has to conclude that the 1996 decision was a classic instance of judicial activism insofar as the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution was effectively derogated at the same time as the court was basically stepping on the rights of states to enforce their own laws as long as those laws comport with the real spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. As if all...
The end:
.....udicial activism that ignored existing precedent, rejected the rights of democratic representatives to formulate laws that made it impossible for certain groups to have special privileges, and overlooked the fact that the fourteenth amendment does not exist to protect some groups more so than others – but all groups equally.
Works Cited
Cornell University Law School, Supreme Court Collection. “Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al. (94-1039), 517 U.S. 620 (1996).” N.d. Cornell University. 18 Dec. 2009 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZS.html
The Heritage Foundation. “Romer v. Evans.” Order in the court: rule of law initiative. N.d. Heritage Foundation. 17 Dec. 2009 http://www.orderinthecourt.org/Cases/Romer-v-Evans